Keeping it?

At the close of the Constitutional Convention Benjamin Franklin was asked what sort of government the delegates had created. His answer: “A republic, if you can keep it.

MSNBC’s Chris Hayes disagrees and engages in some tautological pontification: “[T]he weirdest thing about the Electoral College is the fact that if it weren’t specifically in the Constitution for the presidency, it would be unconstitutional.”

Maybe that was the weirdest thing about the Electoral College (for some weird definition of weird) up until he said it. Suddenly, the weirdest thing about the Electoral College became the wobbly perambulations of Hayes’ mind, if mind isn’t too generous a word.

What is unconstitutional is the effort known as the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact to destroy the Republic we were given.

The U.S. is a Democratic Constitutional Republic, and Yes, It Matters

Constitution Day

The 2016 Constitution Day Celebration Program Lectures at Hillsdale College. Click the link.

Hillsdale also offers a free course on understanding the Constitution.

The U.S. Constitution is the key to securing liberty for all Americans — yet very few know exactly what it says, and what freedoms it protects. Hillsdale College is dedicating this year to educating millions of Americans about this critical document. That’s why the College is offering its most popular course, “Constitution 101” for free, when you sign up now.

Hillsdale’s course, Constitution 101: The Meaning and History of the Constitution, features the same professors who teach this course on Hillsdale College’s campus. Hillsdale is one of the only colleges in America — outside of the military academies — that requires every student to take a course on the Constitution to graduate.

The course is delivered via email, with one lesson per week for 10 weeks. Each lesson features lively teaching and discussion boards, suggested readings, weekly quizzes, and more.

All your bases are belong to you

The Progressives discover the racist basis of one of their most accomplished enablers:
“Woodrow Wilson was extremely racist — even by the standards of his time.”

It’s no secret that the arrogant, mean-spirited and insufferably pedantic Wilson despised the Constitution:

All that progressives ask or desire is permission — in an era when “development,” “evolution,” is the scientific word — to interpret the Constitution according to the Darwinian principle; all they ask is recognition of the fact that a nation is a living thing and not a machine.
-Section II: “What Is Progress?”

…and with that, except for the “permission” bit, the crybullies and Barack Obama agree.

More on Woodrow Wilson here.

Recommended reading:
Wilson’s War
Jim Powell

Theodore and Woodrow
Andrew P. Napolitano

Calmly outraging the outragers

Ben Carson’s Response to PC Outrage Is Smarter than Trump’s

Ben Carson’s Progressive Critics Are Terrified Of Answering This Question

One of the things Carson said that twisted some knickers isn’t mentioned in the above:
Ben Carson Upsets Mainstream Media: Openly Questions Fiat Money

And, if you’ve got 5 minutes, this:
“Francisco’s Money Speech”
…is a worthy followup to the 3rd link above.

Obanana Republic

On November 5th, 2008, I said that the Obama Administration would be the most corrupt in living memory. I was wrong. It’s not merely living memory. And it goes beyond simple corruption.

The American people have been subject to a direct, systematic attack by the federal government, accomplished via the tax laws. Extremely complex laws were combined with bureaucratic ignorance, institutional arrogance, a monopoly on the use of force and a leadership competent solely in permanent campaign mode; in a comprehensive effort to punish dissent, interfere in elections and restrict religious freedom. Information was demanded that could only result in limiting freedom of assembly. Confidential tax information was leaked. Lies were repeatedly told to the legislative branch and to all Americans. When it became apparent that the perfidy would be exposed, and before informing Congress, the IRS staged a passive “Mistakes were made” apology by planting a question at a press conference.

[The IRS] acknowledged it was wrong for the agency to target groups based on political affiliation.

“That was absolutely incorrect, it was insensitive and it was inappropriate. That’s not how we go about selecting cases for further review,” Lerner said at a conference sponsored by the American Bar Association.

“The IRS would like to apologize for that,” she added.

OK, go ahead and apologize, you have our permission. When you do, please reference the First Amendment. And then, name names, fire people and bring charges.

Admit that it was not just groups with the words “Tea Party” in their names. Discuss why, after president “Know Nothing” and his cronies specifically named individual Americans who disagree with the president’s policies, that those named individuals were audited. Expand on your understanding of why it’s wrong for the federal government to demand the content of individual prayers, specifically threatening perjury charges for those so questioned. Tell us why “progressive” groups received preferential treatment in the same time period. I think we need more insight than “inappropriate,” or “poor customer service.”

Tell us if you believe that the root problem is allowing corporations to practice free speech, and whether more regulation is needed. Why is current legal complexity insufficient unto hiding the IRS agenda? Explain why the reasons you gave for the “enhanced scrutiny,” don’t even hold up.

Finally, do you think the IRS transgressions are irrelevant if no one can prove that Obama is directly involved? Do you agree that if the president was involved, it shows that he is the most corrupt, tyrannical leader in American history, and that every branch of the executive division in our government is suspect? If the president wasn’t involved, can any number of straw men, any amount of ad hominem political hackery, any quantity of ignorance pleading – change the fact that it is his Administration?

Before answering, think about what it means if Obama wasn’t involved: The IRS, an agency with the power to destroy every person in America, did all of this on its own initiative.

Explain, please, why your actions did not violate each and every term of the following:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

There is a nascent protest scheduled at IRS locations on Tuesday May, 21st. At noon, I will be at:

EAST LANSING, MI /DET IRS OFFICE
3100 WEST ROAD
EAST LANSING, MI 48823

Let us see what happens.

Unintended consequences

Health Care and the Dynamics of Intervention

“We have a crisis! We have to do something!” Actually, what we have to do is undo a lot of things.

Every time I hear some dunderhead complain that the General Government needs to control “x” because otherwise it will cost the General Government too much to continue providing x — and especially x’s new extension, “y” — I think of all the reasons the Founders never intended the General Government to be involved in whatever “x” is in the first place. It’s why the powers are enumerated: You don’t get to grant yourself an interest in something so you can gradually take it over by complaining about the results of your own actions.

As it is, the General Government is free to cause the problem, and the “fix” is always to take more liberty from individuals. It’s 55mph speed limits, or “We won’t give you money for roads.” It’s our money in the first place. If we weren’t compelled to send it to them, they couldn’t extort us with it.

The Founders didn’t have to imagine all the ways in which these problems could be created, (they couldn’t have imagined the need for a 55mph speed limit, nor Obamacare) all they had to do was recognize the universal tendency of governments over the course of centuries. The Constitution is NOT a “living document.” Mostly, that holds because we’ve learned nothing about power and corruption. We keep electing the practitioners, and it’s our fault for not holding them to the contract of the Constitution.

Long division

Jonathan Alter @jonathanalter has declared a loser in the culture wars:

The independent women who will help determine the election want the government–and their bosses–out of their private lives. The culture wars are over, and the Republicans lost.

If they want the government out of their lives, they most certainly will not vote for Obama. What Alter really means is that, “They want their view of government largesse out of the political arena. They’d like you to believe the culture wars are over.”

Good luck with that. I don’t think the case is proven that thirty year old left-wing activist students at elite Universities, testifying before faux Congressional “committees” and hugely exaggerating the cost of birth control pills, have every right to make Catholics, much less anybody else, pay for their birth control.

Meanwhile, the president is playing the religion card :

When we start using religion as a bludgeon in politics, we start questioning other people’s faith, we start using religion to divide, instead of bring the country together, then I think we’ve got a problem.

So, I guess using religion to divide the country (And whose plan was that, anyway?) is entirely different from using race for the same purpose.

Eric Holder, call your office. The president has an update for you on how to interpret the Constitution.

NY State Senators: We need Canada’s speech laws

Only 10 times more restrictive.

Proponents of a more refined First Amendment argue that this freedom [speech] should be treated not as a right but as a privilege — a special entitlement granted by the state on a conditional basis that can be revoked if it is ever abused or maltreated.

Refined? That isn’t “refined.” It’s what statist fools mean when they call the Constitution a living document: “It means what we say it means, whenever we say what it means.” It’s Orwell’s Newspeak. It’s Humpty Dumpty from Alice in Wonderland. It’s Bill Clinton expounding on the meaning of the word “is.”

If this…

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

…isn’t clear on the subject of speech, then I suggest it is also not clear on freedom from religion, freedom of religion, freedom to publish, or the right to associate freely. All those things are subject to the whims of unelected and faceless bureaucrats.